A NEIGHBOUR’S QUARREL.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1119, 30 November 1883, Page 2

A NEIGHBOUR’S QUARREL.

At the R.M. Gonrt tin’s morning, before His Worship the Alayor and Dr Croft, Minnie Canute was charged by Minnie Krauss with assaulting her. Mr Barton appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hamerton for the defendant. ; Air Hamerton asked that all the witnesses iri the ease should be ordered ont -of Court, which was done. At this stage the weapons with which the assault was alleged r to have been committed a substantial ’ looking earthenware bottle and a long-hSndled shovel—were produced.

The plaintiff eta tod that 'she was a washerwoman. On Tuesday evening last, while speaking to her mother, the ’defendant threw a bottle, which struck her on the left arm, over the fence after which she threw the shovel. The defendant also called her a drunken pig” and other bad names. s; j In cress-examination the plaintiff said that, she did not remember seeing two boys in the defendant’s garden. She did not throw any bottles into the defendant’s garden on the evening in question. She did not call Mrs Canute names. A dummywoman was built up on witness’ fence about 3 years ago* -by' a neighbour, because she was noisy, and so that she might quarrel with it. She never coupled the name of a person called Dickcll with that of Mrs Canute.

Otilia Krause, the daughter of, the the plaintiff, corroborated her mother’s evidence.

This was the plaintiff's case

Mr Barton thought it quite clear that if tho plaintiff wanted an image to talk to, the defendant wanted an “Aunt Sally” on her fence to throw bottles and shovels at. However taikable and noisy the plaintiff might he, the defendant should not throw bottles over the fence in that way. Ho would suggest with all due deference to their Worships that a fine be inflicted or else that the defendant be bound over to keep the peace.

Mr Hamorton also made a few remarks in the course of which he said that he should produce evidence that the plaintiff threw two bottles over the fence

and that the defendant merely threw them back, and she would deny having thrown Ihe shovel. The defendant said she remembered last Tuesday evening. She was feeding pigs when the plaintiff said she was putting in too much mash. Witness told her to mind her own business. The plaintiff then threw a bottle nlher which struck her hand, and threw another bottle nl her boy. Another boy was also present. Witness threw one of the bottles back. The plaintiff did not tell her she was struck by it. The plaintiff was constantly calling witness bad names. She often connected witness’ name with that of a pmon named Dickcir. Witn-ss remembered a dummy woman bring put upon the plaintiff’s fence three or four years ago. It was put up by Mrs Pender, Witness had often hoard the plaintiff and Mrs Pender quarrelling. In cross-examination the witness admitted that she had thrashed four women, and in reply to Mr llam*rton, stated that the plaintiff was in the habit of amusing herself by beating other peoples children. ,

The B-noh after considering the question, said that each of the two ladies in question -should be bound over To keep the peace towards all her Majesty’s subjects for six months in their own recognisances.

Mr Barton submitted that In the case of flic “warrior lady" who had already thrashed four people, sureties should be found.